<p>Gee, I wouldn’t even defend Clinton twice.</p>
<p>Hussein and Qaeda had different aims. In many ways, opposing ones. What links have you discerned between the two, besides the fact that some may have met and decided they couldn’t do business?</p>
<p>then let’s talk about links between Saudis, Wahabbism (which fuels the new generation of terrorists in Iraq,) and Al Qaeda. Wanna go to war against the Saudis next?</p>
<p>The “animosity” between Saddam and bin Laden has been way over-played and even if it did exist, we know very well that in world politics “the enemy of your enemy is your friend”. We reluctantly worked with Stalin in WW II but he was far from a friend. To hinge the security of the country on such a flimsy theory (that they would never cooperate because they had conflicting goals) would be grounds for impeachment if we had done so and if bin Laden ultimately attacked us with WMD from Saddam.</p>
<p>But, beyond that there are plenty of other links, staring with the Kay report and the 9/11 Commission report. Here is what Lee Hamilton said:
</p>
<p>Here is a link to a list of connections compiled by the prosecutor for the original WTC bombers.
<a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp</a></p>
<p>Maybe some of these links might be in error, but all of them?</p>
<p>Of course then there are all of the other links to terrorism in general that are not at all controversial - like the fact that Saddam gave cash payments to Palestinain suicide bombers or that he provided sanctuary for one of the original WTC bombers. Here is a link to some of these terror connections:
<a href=“http://www.husseinandterror.com/[/url]”>http://www.husseinandterror.com/</a>
And, presuming that you really are interested in this, I suggest that you read this lengthy article by Stephen Hayes who has spent the last couple of years researching the Iraq/al Qaeda links:
<a href=“http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=2[/url]”>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=2</a>
Some excerpts:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s hard to wade through all that innuendo and guesswork, but heck, if the enemy of your enemy is not your friend, why was Rumsfeld such a pal of Saddam, why were we giving millions of dollars to the Taliban in 2001?</p>
<p>Well, for God’s sake—if the connection between Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime is as emphatic as you insist, FF, WHY, OH WHY did not the Bush Administration make it clear to the American people?! Why has it done such a pi** poor job of showing exactly how a regime change in Iraq is essential to fighting “the war on terror”? What’s the hog wash about bringing “democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people”, when clearly, such things never meant jack to us prior to 9/11? </p>
<p>I do believe that the Bush Administration was indeed totally caught off guard by the absence of WMD. Had it known that none would be found, it surly would have worked to “plant” some somewhere, so as to avoid such a massive international egg-facing. I’m sure the last thing Bush expected was to have been wrong about WMD. Of course, we huffed and puffed, and postured and threatened Saddam for 18 months prior to going in. That, some might argue, was plenty of time for Saddam to find ingenius hiding places for these weapons and to eliminate most evidence of their prior existence. Certainly, the evidence was compelling that Iraq HAD at some point amassed WMD, and was agressively seeking to obtain more in the recent history leading up to 9/11. The Clinton Administration even made such claims. </p>
<p>Hey, the American people are fairly asute. We can connect the dots if they are drawn clearly enough. But, as it stands now, the connection between Iraq and terrorism has been made about as clear as mud. Why is that?</p>
<p>I used no quotes what so ever around the term ladies. In Texas, that’s the polite term for women. My point was clear, women have historically been opposed to war. They simply don’t want to lose husbands or sons. i think that accounts for the fact that you see so many families split over a childs military service. You see a similar effect on high school football teams. I think you find some difference with women who are actually in the military, but we all know that is an extremely small group.</p>
<p>
I have never been impressed with the ability of the Bush team to deliver a complex message. Perhaps they view that the American people can’t process complexity. This is actually borne out here on CC where people continue to insist that there has to be one single reason for going to war. They can’t seem to process that the rationale included many interwoven concepts. When the Bush team mentions one of the other ones, the left immediately accuses them of “changing” the rationale. The rationale has not changed - it is and always has been multifaceted.</p>
<p>Those who accuse the current administration of “making things up” need to answer the question: why is it that Bill Clinton, who had access to esentially the same intelligence, agrees that Bush probably did the right thing that a president who is responsible for the security of the country would have to do?</p>
<p>Bush pretends there is a relationship now!</p>
<p><a href=“http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-20T151442Z_01_MOL050830_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-C-COL.XML[/url]”>http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-20T151442Z_01_MOL050830_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-C-COL.XML</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050822/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq&printer=1;_ylt=AsdJd7i.7dEa93EsuCF6m4mMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050822/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq&printer=1;_ylt=AsdJd7i.7dEa93EsuCF6m4mMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-</a></p>
<p>Senator Hagel brings me some comfort in believing that there is a moderate centre for the Republican party, after all.</p>
<p>Shades of Swift Boat Veterens - new mother group has been formed to go after Cindy Sheehan. This is their MO…form and fund a group to use one military mother to discredit another who lost her son. Make it look like the original by picking a mother from central valley California and have a convoy head down to Crawford. Apparently the intimidation of people driving over crosses honoring our lost soldiers and neighbors fireing shotguns didn’t work…so here is plan B. </p>
<p>President continues to vacation and speak only to those who agree with him…which is getting to be a bit of a chore as most of the country catches on to his deceptions. How many days of Vacation does this guy take every year?</p>
<p>As I stated earlier, he works on his vacations. We have these nice things called cell phones, blackberries, laptops, etc. He already spoke to Cindy once, and she was satisfied right after that meeting, only later did she change her mind. He doesn’t owe her anything. Should he speak to everyone in this country that isn’t happy with one of his policies? Sounds quite feasible. </p>
<p>Many people who oppose Cindy have asked to debate her on the Iraq issue, but she and all her supporters refuse. She would just be completely embarassed and made to look like the fool she is. Just read any of her statements, they are incoherent, opinionated, anti-American/Israeli ramblings. She is just a crazed woman trying to get publicity. Even her family has pretty much disowned her…</p>
<p>Mr. B, I see you subscribe to the traditional leftist view of free speech. That is, all demonstrations in favor of your position are protected free speech and are admirable. All demonstrations against your viewpoint are attempts to discredit, smear, and infringe on the rights of free speech (for the protected left) and therefore are reprehensible.</p>
<p>He has people are war, fighting, and he goes bike riding…it just looks bad…</p>
<p>And, I have seen more smearing of Cindy cause she disagrees with the President. Attack each and every statement she makes, while we let slide Pat Roberts, the President, Cheney, Rice…she is under a microscope and yet we are to just let the Administration slide.</p>
<p>Hypocracy thy name is conservative.</p>
<p>And FundingFather, I see you subscribe to the Righties view point that the administration is perfect in all aspects, never missteps and those that disagree need to be smeared</p>
<p>I get it now</p>
<p>The Cult of Bush</p>
<p>fundingfather, I see you subscribe to the traditional right wing point of view - label everyone who disagrees with you.</p>
<p>I agree that people have a right to diverse opinions, and I would argue that the majority public opinion is sometimes wrong (see the last election) so the correct opinion doesn’t have to be the popular one. I just note that this administrations approach to opponents is to throw the public falsified data, create and fund groups like the swift boat veterens and this new mom who convienently and coincidentally comes from the same region of the country as Cindy. The caravan from Sacramento had Carl Rove’s fingerprints all over it.</p>
<p>George Bush has repeatedly mislead this country about this war. Of all the nations in the world he picks Iraq as a threat worthy of pre-emptive war, even if you believed we should become an agressor nation don’t you think there would have been bigger threats out there than the one we already had under control?</p>
<p>Of all the nations out there where children and women and common citizens are deprived of rights what was it about Iraq that requires us to go in and overturn a government? </p>
<p>Why do you think he chose Iraq? Why did this administration undermind any opinion that Iraq was not a country building up for nuclear war, even outing our own spies to quiet a knowledgeable spouse? Why did we condem European nations for not supporting us…and then pretend the world was with us by referring to coalition forces…when the two largest armies there were us and our contractor armies? Why did we give up the fight in Afghanistan and the search for the man most responsible for 9/11 diverting our resources to an attack on an oil rich nation? </p>
<p>How can a man who is willing to send everyone elses family members into a war that he now declares is for democracy refuse to speak to any group that hasn’t been screened to allow only supporters in? </p>
<p>I can understand people closing their eyes to a few mistakes a President makes, but when this administration sacrifices our family members and friends for family vendettas and oil it is time to ask them to stop. Cindy is a hero.</p>
<p>Mr. B, I’d like to see you present one bit of information that proves Bush “lied” to America. I don’t like Bush, but I don’t see why people “hate” him so much. He has done what any other president would have. If you think Kerry would have been any different, you are sadly mistaking.</p>
<p>Cindy supports terrorism. Look at her links to Lynne Stewart. She supports the destruction of Israel. She said the US is a horrible country, and always has been. Sure is a hero…</p>
<p>Cindy is a despicable human being…too bad her son, A TRUE HERO, died instead of her.</p>
<p>I remember when Clinton got slammed for say “is, is”. Or not calling oral sex, sex. Yet when we show over again that Bush misled, lied, misinterpreted, gave false information, that is not “lying”</p>
<p>Um, Cindy supports terrorism? My goodness…</p>
<p>Bush has created more terrorism in the middle east through inept leadership than anyone before him.</p>
<p>And we are at war for a nobel cause…and that cause is? We went in based on what? </p>
<p>And its interesting that every word of Cindy’s is analyzed, twisted, and turned, yet, if we even question Bushes, the leader of the free world, one of the most powerful people on the planet, well, if we question his choices, his statements, his actions, we are unpatriotic.</p>
<p>He is not a good man. He has bad people around him. He promotes incompetence. He lies. And he uses fear to get power.</p>
<p>And, we, as a country have made horrendous mistakes</p>
<p>And devils67, has Bush ever done anything wrong in your opinion. I will start first. Clinton made many mistakes. I did not agree with him on everything.</p>
<p>Your turn. About Bush, don’t try and be coy.</p>
<p>
Hmmm… what label did I use?
Perhaps you should take that up with the Senate who voted 99-0 in favor of regime change in Iraq. Can you name any other country that has a Senate mandate for regime change? Can you name one other vote other than a senate resolution for Mother’s Day that mothers are great people, where the Senate is unanimous about anything? You can also take that up with the Senate and House who voted overwhelmingly in support of military action.</p>
<p>
That is a huge insult to the thousands of armed forces people serving and dying in Afghanistan. It is also flat out wrong from a factual perspective. Tommy Franks pointed out that there were more soldiers in Afghanistan after the war in Iraq started than were there before.
I guess you have seen Farenheit 911 one too many times. That is just a laughable assertion.</p>
<p>First off, let me state I am a liberal. That said, what she is doing is shameless, and horrible. Argue the merits of the war all you want, but her son was a SOLDIER in the ARMY. You don’t become a soldier unless you are prepared to make that sacrifice. There is no more draft, it is a volunteer army and noone put a gun to her sons head and told him to join. In many respects this is the liberal equivalent of the terry schiavo case, something that was strictly in the courts, but politicians and press blew up for their own agendas. I realize by saying this Im now open to be blasted by everyone, but so be it. And what does this have to do with college anyway?</p>
<p>Another President might have read the memo concerning the threat of planes flying into buildings instead of spending so much time on vacation. </p>
<p>Bush lied to Congress and the American people about his reasons for going to war and continues to lie about his reasons for staying there.<br>
High priced gasoline, record oil company profits, and a war in Iraq…what a surprise that Bush would give us all that.</p>